duplicate restitution

[SinkingFast]

What is the name of your state? Missouri

I can't seem to find the answer to my question when doing online searches so I'm hoping someone here can help. My son was charged with 2 class B felonies for selling marijuana to an undercover officer. Thankfully (because he has a family to support), he was given 5 years probation. Part of his probation includes restitution of the "buy money" spent by the police department. Part of the restitution total is for one of two buys and is for the amount of $750. However, my son's "supplier" is the one who actually handed off the drugs and received the money (which took place in my son's home). For this, the "supplier" was charged with 1 class B felony and ordered to pay restitution of $750. This is the same $750 my son was ordered to pay. My son's case was finished and he was put on probation on July, '04. He was given 2 years to pay his restitution. The "supplier" was put on probation on May, '05, and given just 1 year to pay restitution.

It is my understanding that the judge can charge this "duplication" of restitution in an attempt to collect the money owed from whichever defendant they are able to collect from. If the "supplier" pays the restitution in the time allotted in order to avoid a probation violation, then it would seem that my son's restitution would be reduced by that same amount in order to avoid duplicate payment. However, it would be necessary for my son to save up that amount in the event the "supplier" failed to pay. (Knowing something about the "supplier" I feel there is a high probability that he will pay the restitution on time) Since there is less than 3 months between when the "supplier's" restitution is due and when my son's is due, it doesn't leave much room for my son to come up with the money should he end up still owing it and should he fail to save the $750.

I emailed my son's attorney and asked this question but his response was, "You don't know if "supplier" will pay, therefore your son needs to go ahead and pay."

The problem is, my son is working overtime just to provide a home and food for his family (4 yr. old, 18 mth. old, newborn). He has followed all of the terms of his probation to date and is trying hard to lead a "normal" life. I'm concerned that he will have to choose between being evicted or violating his probation for failure to pay restitution so finding out if his restitution would be reduced by the amount the "supplier" pays would help greatly. My questions would be:

1) If more than one defendant is charged for the (same) restitution amount, is it legal for the court to collect any amount paid above the amount owed (in this case, $750 to the police department)?

2) Is there any way to find out how much, if any, restitution has been paid by any other defendant toward the duplicate amount?

3) If more than the original amount cannot be collected and that amount is collected from another defendant, what would the process be for my son to have his sentence adjusted to reflect the lesser amount he would then owe?

Thank you for any help provided.
SF

 

[DRTDEVL]

Hmm... Let's see... He has until July 06 to pay this, so:

QUESTION 4:

What are the chances your son is completely unable to set aside $62.50 per month for the next year in order to repay his debt to society? Even at minimum wage, that's only 12.13 hours per MONTH, or 1/2 hour per day worth of his paycheck, not including the overtime you claim he works...

 

[garrula lingua]

It's too late for your son to start negotiating the terms of his probation !

His choices are simple: pay the restitution as ordered by the court OR
go to jail/prison for the probation violation.

Why are you trying to protect your son from the consequences of his criminal acts ?

Let him be a man, suck it up, pay his debt to society & go straight

Can't your son do his "time" without his mommy interfering? Let him grow up.

PS The Judge can let your son withdraw his plea, set the case for trial and your son can do real time, not fines and restitution.

 

[Happy Trails]

What is the name of your state? Missouri

I can't seem to find the answer to my question when doing online searches so I'm hoping someone here can help.

You found the answer to your question online; it was this.

I emailed my son's attorney and asked this question but his response was, "You don't know if "supplier" will pay, therefore your son needs to go ahead and pay."

 

[SinkingFast]

Hmmm, maybe I should repost my question without offering details.

Let's see...I could say, "If two people are charged with restitution that would repay the same debt, how much should the person that spent the cash (supplier) pay of it and how much should the person that did not spend it (son) pay?"

If Mommy wanted to protect her little sonny wonny she would pay the restitution for him instead of posting on a board where she thought someone might know the real answers to her questions (rather than receiving personal opinions about her son's debt to society).

If he didn't receive the $750, and therefore never spent the $750, why is it his debt to society to repay it when the supplier (who did spend the money) is also charged with repaying it? (Remember, this money is not going to "society", it's going to the police department to replace the drug money that was spent) My son still owes the $400 he did recieve for selling drugs (and that he did spend). He also owes 150 community service hours.
If both defendants in the case are charged with repaying the $750 and the court can only receive that exact amount (whether from one or through a combination of payments from both defendants), who do YOU think should repay the money? The guy that spent it or the guy that received none of it?? Because if the court cannot collect the amount twice (since the P.D. only spent it once) and my son pays the money back, what is the punishment for the guy that sold the drugs and spent the $750 (the supplier)??

If anyone reads the above and thinks that the guy that spent the $750 deserves to pay it back, please read on.

My questions were/are:

1) Is it unlawful for a court to collect twice on the same debt owed?

2) If it is unlawful, and if the guy that actually received and spent the money DOES pay it back before my son's deadline to pay it, does anyone know how that would be reflected on my son's sentence (since he would no longer owe that part of his restitution)?

3) Is there any way to know how much has currently been paid towards it? (Is this something a p.o. could find out?)

DRTDEVL: Thank you for working those figures out. I know it doesn't seem like much when you break it down, however, since the total amount of restitution due is $1,150 ($750 + $400 from the two "transactions") it comes out to almost $100 a month. This still may not seem like much to save in addition to "food and rent" but real life is about a lot more than that. It's about utilities and diapers and formula and medical bills and car insurance and gas and things like having your phone shut off because you couldn't pay the $27 bill.

If I could find out whether the court can legally receive an amount above the actual debt owed to the police department then the whole issue would be moot and let them collect whatever they can from both defendants (including Mama's boy). However, if they canNOT collect over the amount, I don't think it's all that strange for a mom (who believes the guy that spent it should pay it back) to try to find answers that would give some financial relief to a struggling young family.
I could be delusional though.

Hoping for an answer that deals with actual law and not opinion,
SF

 

[Happy Trails]

Hmmm, maybe I should repost my question without offering details.

Let's see...I could say, "If two people are charged with restitution that would repay the same debt, how much should the person that spent the cash (supplier) pay of it and how much should the person that did not spend it (son) pay?"

If Mommy wanted to protect her little sonny wonny she would pay the restitution for him instead of posting on a board where she thought someone might know the real answers to her questions (rather than receiving personal opinions about her son's debt to society).

If he didn't receive the $750, and therefore never spent the $750, why is it his debt to society to repay it when the supplier (who did spend the money) is also charged with repaying it? (Remember, this money is not going to "society", it's going to the police department to replace the drug money that was spent) My son still owes the $400 he did recieve for selling drugs (and that he did spend). He also owes 150 community service hours.
If both defendants in the case are charged with repaying the $750 and the court can only receive that exact amount (whether from one or through a combination of payments from both defendants), who do YOU think should repay the money? The guy that spent it or the guy that received none of it?? Because if the court cannot collect the amount twice (since the P.D. only spent it once) and my son pays the money back, what is the punishment for the guy that sold the drugs and spent the $750 (the supplier)??

If anyone reads the above and thinks that the guy that spent the $750 deserves to pay it back, please read on.

My questions were/are:

1) Is it unlawful for a court to collect twice on the same debt owed?

2) If it is unlawful, and if the guy that actually received and spent the money DOES pay it back before my son's deadline to pay it, does anyone know how that would be reflected on my son's sentence (since he would no longer owe that part of his restitution)?

3) Is there any way to know how much has currently been paid towards it? (Is this something a p.o. could find out?)

DRTDEVL: Thank you for working those figures out. I know it doesn't seem like much when you break it down, however, since the total amount of restitution due is $1,150 ($750 + $400 from the two "transactions") it comes out to almost $100 a month. This still may not seem like much to save in addition to "food and rent" but real life is about a lot more than that. It's about utilities and diapers and formula and medical bills and car insurance and gas and things like having your phone shut off because you couldn't pay the $27 bill.

If I could find out whether the court can legally receive an amount above the actual debt owed to the police department then the whole issue would be moot and let them collect whatever they can from both defendants (including Mama's boy). However, if they canNOT collect over the amount, I don't think it's all that strange for a mom (who believes the guy that spent it should pay it back) to try to find answers that would give some financial relief to a struggling young family.
I could be delusional though.

Hoping for an answer that deals with actual law and not opinion,
SF

Your attorney gave you the only answer you NEED to know and that is your son has to pay it. It was ordered by the court that it is part of his sentence.

If you want the guy that actually received the money to pay, then take him to small claims court. (Good luck with that though.)

Your son was ordered to pay; he has to pay.

 

[SinkingFast]

Your attorney gave you the only answer you NEED to know and that is your son has to pay it. It was ordered by the court that it is part of his sentence.

If you want the guy that actually received the money to pay, then take him to small claims court. (Good luck with that though.)

Your son was ordered to pay; he has to pay.

The guy that received the money was also ordered BY THE COURT to pay it. I think he will pay it (because I know enough about him to think that he would rather pay up than go to prison). If he does pay it, it would have to be paid before the deadline for my son to pay it.

Once more with feeling (and believe me, I'm feeling something!).

Question: IS IT LAWFUL FOR A COURT TO COLLECT TWICE (THROUGH RESTITUTION) THE SAME DEBT (ONCE EACH FROM TWO DIFFERENT DEFENDANTS)?

The $750 owed by both is listed in the sentences for both as "restitution - buy money to the (unnamed) police department."
This is the money the undercover officer used to purchase drugs from the supplier (not my son). I do know that the judge can charge all defendants involved in a case for the same amount owed and then collect from any of them they are lucky enough to collect from. It was my understanding that they can only do this UP TO THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY OWED. In this case, the amount being $750.

I am not trying to keep my son from paying something he owes. Yes, the judge charged him with that amount. But if the law says the court can only collect that exact amount and the guy that received the money is also charged with repaying that amount (and in a lesser time frame), why is everyone so gung-ho for my son to pay it? IF the court can only collect the amount once and the other guy pays it, my son does NOT owe it. Period. All I'm trying to do is find someone that knows what the law IS regarding the court being allowed to actually receive more than the $750 due the police department. If anyone can show me that the law says the court CAN collect more, then only an idiot would pursue trying to keep her son from paying it. I am not that idiot.

SF

 

[Curt581]

Question: IS IT LAWFUL FOR A COURT TO COLLECT TWICE (THROUGH RESTITUTION) THE SAME DEBT (ONCE EACH FROM TWO DIFFERENT DEFENDANTS)?

They are NOT being required to each pay the total amount of restitution, effectively giving the police double restitution.

The restitution was ordered to be paid under a legal term called "Joint and Several" liability.

Per the ABA website:
Joint and several liability - A legal concept that says that each of the parties who are responsible for an injury are liable for the total amount of damages awarded in a lawsuit if the other parties responsible cannot pay.

If one pays it in full, the other doesn't have to pay at all. If one pays only part of the total, the other is liable for the remainder.

In your case, if the dealer pays the full $750, then your son pays nothing.

If the dealer pays $100, your son owes $650.

If the dealer doesn't pay ANY of it, your son owes $750.

 

[SinkingFast]

They are NOT being required to each pay the total amount of restitution, effectively giving the police double restitution.

The restitution was ordered to be paid under a legal term called "Joint and Several" liability.

Per the ABA website:
Joint and several liability - A legal concept that says that each of the parties who are responsible for an injury are liable for the total amount of damages awarded in a lawsuit if the other parties responsible cannot pay.

If one pays it in full, the other doesn't have to pay at all. If one pays only part of the total, the other is liable for the remainder.

In your case, if the dealer pays the full $750, then your son pays nothing.

If the dealer pays $100, your son owes $650.

If the dealer doesn't pay ANY of it, your son owes $750.

Thank you SO much for your reply! You've put a name to this concept and given me a new means of search. So far, all I'm finding are cases where the inability to pay the restitution is addressed but hopefully I'll find the answers I'm looking for; how any amount paid would be reflected in the amount my son would still owe and whether it's possible to find out what, if anything, has been paid to date.

Umm...I don't suppose you have an answer for that?

Again, many thanks for a straightforward answer.
SF

 

[Curt581]

how any amount paid would be reflected in the amount my son would still owe and whether it's possible to find out what, if anything, has been paid to date.

That's a question best asked of the Clerk Of Courts office. They keep track of such things. If I had to guess, the dealer hasn't paid any of it.

You're not the first person confused by this method. Courts often use this in co-defendant cases, but seldom put in place a workable mechanism for payment. They only impose penalties for not complying.

Your son's attorney should have explained it.

Your son should pay whatever has not been paid to date, if for no other reason than to avoid problems for himself in the future.

 

[SinkingFast]

That's a question best asked of the Clerk Of Courts office. They keep track of such things. If I had to guess, the dealer hasn't paid any of it.

You're not the first person confused by this method. Courts often use this in co-defendant cases, but seldom put in place a workable mechanism for payment. They only impose penalties for not complying.

Your son's attorney should have explained it.

Your son should pay whatever has not been paid to date, if for no other reason than to avoid problems for himself in the future.

Thank you for this additional information. Your posts were extremely helpful.
SF

 

[Hattie]

If it were my son I think I'd be upset as heck with the court. I'd have hoped someone would teach him something to prevent future deviant behavior and $750 is small change to a drug dealer.

 

[SinkingFast]

update: joint & several liability

This is a follow up to the question I posted in July and the answer I received from Curt581. I'm posting this update for others who may come searching for the answer to the same question. My son went to the Circuit Court clerk's office (since I couldn't find anything under "Clerk of Courts" for Missouri) and asked about the restitution situation regarding the other defendant and "joint and several liability" and they were very helpful. (They knew right away what he was talking about). So far, the co-defendant hasn't paid any of the $750 restitution but he has paid around half of the $1,400+ court costs associated with his case. Also, my son was told he can get an update on any restitution paid just by calling and asking. As for everyone's advice that my son go ahead and pay it, his p.o. told him he is not to pay anything until she tells him. The same with the community service. First she had him take the parenting class, as ordered. Then she had him complete his drug evaluation. I don't know if this is how all probation officers do things (one thing at a time), or are required to do things, but that's how it is with my son's.

I'm sorry to disappoint all the members who wrote that my son should have to pay the money. Take heart in knowing that he might still have to pay it and if he doesn't pay it, it will only be because the guy that sold the drugs, received the money for them, and spent the money, will have paid it instead.

For all who suggested my son should pay it because who knows if the other defendant will pay (including my son's lawyer): my son's plan is to save the money until the time allotted for the other defendant to pay has reached an end, in the hopes he does pay (since my son has a longer amount of time in which to pay). The reason we believe he (the dealer) will pay it is because (in addition to selling drugs) he has a full time "real" job that pays well and he is not the kind of person that would go to jail for failure to pay a debt. Of course, if he goes to jail for any other reason (like selling drugs, for instance) the chances of him paying the restitution fly out the window. In fact, I've heard (but not officially) that if he goes to jail he will be relieved of having to pay restitution or court costs. (Anyone know if that's true?)

I know (and agree) that anyone who breaks the law deserves to be punished. But I also know it would really benefit this forum if the people who are hyperfocused on the punishment would take a moment to look at all the information being given before offering their personal opinions.

Curt581: Thank you, again. We are very grateful for your truly invaluable help.

SF

 

[Kane]

I've heard (but not officially) that if he goes to jail he will be relieved of having to pay restitution or court costs. (Anyone know if that's true?)

That's how it works in Texas. It's hard to collect restitution from prisoners. They have no money, and they don't collect paychecks.

 

[SinkingFast]

Punishment or reward?

That's how it works in Texas. It's hard to collect restitution from prisoners. They have no money, and they don't collect paychecks.

Thank you for the response, Kane. That's exactly how it was explained to me. And while it makes practical sense, theoretically it stinks. The person that relayed that info to me said she knew a girl who owed thousands but, after being arrested and serving less than 2 months in jail, the debts were forgiven. So the guy busting his rear to pay his "debt to society" must pay in full while the repeat offender that learned nothing gets free room and board and goes away debt free.
Surely there is no motivation to break the law with that kind of reward. Oh, did I say reward? I meant punishment.

SF